Meadows v. Palmer

33 F.R.D. 136, 7 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 649, 1963 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10363
District Court, D. Maryland·Decided July 1, 1963·No. Civ. No. 13943·Published

Opinion

THOMSEN, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff Edward Meadows objects to interrogatory No. 18 of defendant which asks:

“Have you ever been convicted of a crime, other than minor traffic violations ? If the answer is in the affirmative state, where, when and for what offense?”

Objection overruled. An interrogatory to a party designed to elicit facts which may be used in cross examination to affect credibility of that party is a proper subject of discovery. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice (2d ed.), ¶26.16[1], p. 1182-3; 2A Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 647, p. 77, and! cases cited thereunder in both tseatises.. See also Rediker v. Warfield, S.D.N.Y., 11 F.R.D. 125, 128, citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 511, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Meadows v. Palmer, 33 F.R.D. 136, 7 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 649, 1963 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10363 (D. Md. 1963).

33 F.R.D. 136 (Meadows v. Palmer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hickman v. Taylor
329 U.S. 495 (Supreme Court, 1947)
Rediker v. Warfield
11 F.R.D. 125 (S.D. New York, 1951)